ArticleUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Desire to have children after vasectomy : Vasectomy reversal or assisted reproductive technology?]
Article in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The vasectomy is a safe and effective method of contraception for men. Up to 6% of men who underwent vasectomy have a renewed child wish. Microsurgical vasectomy reversal (VR) in men, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA), or testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in men plus assisted reproductive technology (ART) in the female partner as well as the combination of VR and MESA/TESE plus ART represent established therapeutic strategies. Various factors may impact the success of VR, as defined by patency and pregnancy rate following VR, including the female partner's age, the obstructive interval, and the surgical VR technique. There is no difference in the pregnancy and live birth rate following VR or MESA/TESE plus ART. However, following MESA/TESE plus ART, time to pregnancy is shorter compared with VR. Overall, VR is more cost-effective than MESA/TESE plus ART and allows for a lower therapeutic burden, especially in the female partner. In addition, VR combined with TESE plus-if necessary-ART is more cost-effective than MESA/TESE plus ART alone, even in female partners with advanced age. For successful counseling regarding the different therapy options for a renewed child wish after vasectomy, it is important to evaluate the underlying individual situation of the couple.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39414715What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.